Do you honestly believe he doesn't understand it? No, no, he understands it perfectly well.

The problem is that there is sooooo much money and power available to him to continue trying to subvert the data.

Not to sound like too big of a pessimist, but none of these political games are going to change until renewable energy sources start challenging (or even beating) fossil fuels on economic viability and scale. And, knowing politicians and how they always try to make the situation seem rosier for "their side", then we'll be at the point where we start getting on to them for trying to subvert data on how much wildlife our renewable sources impact and the like. Obviously it would still be a net positive from a total environmental impact aspect to use renewables over fossil fuels, probably regardless of how many birds are killed by windmills and solar arrays, but the point is that once the money gets to be on the renewables side then the politicians will try to make renewables seem even better than they are.

And in the meantime how many people were killed by drivers doing other things on their phones? It's not like this is some new problem created by Pokémon Go. There have been distracted drivers since well before the time of cell phones, and a LOT of distracted drivers since the ubiquity of cell phones.

I dare say that, if there has only been one incident in Japan, statistically Pokémon Go is less of a hazard than texting, potentially even less of a hazard than just talking on the phone.

So why the huge stink over this one case, when there have been failures in Automatic Emergency Braking systems for years? This, ultimately, IS a failure in an AEB system (as a part of the larger "autopilot" system). The only difference is that this time it has Tesla's name to it, and there is a lot of political money behind vilifying them because they don't do business like a "normal" auto manufacturer. What comes to mind is the example where a Volvo is demonstrating its AEB with real people standing in front of it. It then commences to just plow through them. We didn't see a witch hunt on Volvo after that...

2nd Amendment > 1st Amendment.
Duh, 2's bigger.

It seems like every other week you hear about another human task that has been bested by an AI. Here's to that week when I hear that AI has successfully outdone humans at programming AI's. Of course, I'll hear about it from my new robot overlord that wakes me up in the middle of the night to inform me that I am a physical waste of natural resources before murdering me, but still, I can drink to that.

ARE there 9000? Or is it... OVER 9000????!!!!!

According to source in post and cross-referencing with member lists from the Marcellus Shale Coalition, five of the funders of Energy In Depth are board members on MSC while two others are associate members. That's an undeniable 7 of the listed 15 funders. Also, there is undoubtedly a large overlap and many relationships built amongst the funding companies through the even just the executive board of MSC, let alone the companies at large.

Don't write or post stories about stuff like this until after it's basically a done deal. The more air time and attention it gets, the more it reaches the public consciousness of the unwashed masses. Unfortunately, a significant portion of those unwashed masses includes supporters of climate change deniers in congress with the power to continually reject funding for such scientific endeavors. Once this rabid supporter base gets a taste of something like this it has a good chance of spreading to become an epidemic, basically forcing the aforementioned deniers in power to move against it.

So, please, for the love of science, keep stories like this on the down low until their basically about to launch (most of the funding is already spent), sharing it with only your closest and most trusted scientific allies. Let your giddy fancy slowly evolve to the point of nerdgasm as a close precursor to the final objective. Then, and only then, is it safe to share this news with those who cannot or will not appreciate it.

Google grows. Google more and more often takes business steps that are increasingly monopolistic, duh.

I, for one, would be interested to see some sort of psychological study to see at what point on the spectrum from start up to monopoly the general population considers a company to be more a monopoly than just your standard, run of the mill company.

Personally I think Google has crossed that mark. They are certainly not a textbook monopoly, but they behave far too close to one for me to have a positive view of them despite all their positive innovation.

This just it, basic geography skills also lacking.

Why not make the shade a sphere (or at least sphere-ish)? Then you could have multiple telescopes use it to image different stars simultaneously, then have the telescopes reposition. This way you could also scale it up in the future by adding more telescopes if it proves to be a fruitful enough project.

No, electrons are actually considered subatomic particles by physicists.

2D does not refer to an "absence of a degree of freedom". Things denoted in "*number*D" or "*number*-D"format are referring to a number of spacetime dimensions. No one in any field of math, science, or engineering ever relates degrees of motion to "D"s. Sometimes it is abbreviated DOF, but never just *number*(-)D as that is reserved for dimensions.

I didn't read the reference material either. All I did is read the reference section and see that they are references a paper with "granular materials under reduced gravity" in the title. It's by no means a stretch of the imagination to assume that this scientific paper actually uses the results of a referenced scientific paper in its own analysis. That's kind of how the process works.

From the references in that exact article you criticize (but clearly didn't read):

"Kleinhans, M. G., Markies, H., de Vet, S. J., in 't Veld, A. C., Postema, F. N., 2011. Static and dynamic angles of repose in loose granular materials under reduced gravity. Journal of Geophysical Research 116, E11004."

So, yes, I'd say they did take into account the low gravity.